Shawn: The first thing is under
the H2 planning the event. I added another link to the
checklist.
... this is based on ADA. I thought it was fairly complete.
Maybe too detailed but good in this case. One thing to check is
do we want to link to that page. the other one is based out of
the UK. A good to have two checklists from different regions.
Quick reactions?

Shawn: scroll down consider
accessible. Reads from text. Comments on the new wording?

Shadi: people who walk slowly
must use an elevator, I'm not sure if there is a poor example
there.

Ian: I think it ok for people who
require more time. I think it ok as examples.

Shadi: Yeah I was thinking about
people would need more time. And stop there. People who walk
slowly is too much. People think need more time just for
walking slowly.

Shawn: right if you just have one
example people think that is the only one. We could put in
others.

Shadi: Ian's approach is provide
sufficient time. People require such as people walk morte
slowly.

Liam: basically move the where
for example bit.

Shawn: the for example is goes
with the first part. Saying more clearly put the for
examples.

Shadi: come at the beginning?

Shawn: It doesn't we just need to
put more points.

Shadi: I like this.

Shawn: if I move and to the end,
that clears up they are examples. (Reads text)

Liam: what others?

Shadi: the blind person needs to
go to the speaking elevator in the back.

Shawn: doesn't that accessible
routes need more time.

Doyle: Shadi was giving more
examples of persons who need more time.

Shawn: other ideas.

Liam: some people need more time
to get from room to room.

Shawn: put that first?

Liam: yes.

Shawn: for example because of the
accessible route is longer or because they move slowly.
... how does that feel?

<shawn> Some people need more
time to get from room to room; for example, because the
accessible route is longer, or they move slowly.

Shawn: better, not so good?

Ian: better.

Shawn: anything else, (reads
text)? Ok the next section under preparing slides make material
accessible. If you are providing material make it accessible.
We provide a link to accessible examples. Comments?

Liam: good

Sharron: good

Shawn: Under B open to
accessibility issues. Under respect disability needs, we move
up from where it was down. That is it for the changes.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to
ask for more anchors in the code

Shawn: ok anything else on
this?
... I did some informal usability testing on this. One main
thing that came out was how one person had one questions she
wanted. If you are speaker and not planning the event. Having
that first is annoying to wade through. We have talked about
several resources with expanding collapsing information. Each
of these H2s could expand or collapse. Thoughts?

Shadi: not only the H2 but the
individual items as well. Could we have more anchors in the
code? Like send people to a user microphone and link to
there.

Ian: one problem is the
definition list. I'm not fond of. Because of the postion in the
code.

Shawn: we don't have to stick
with that, we could do with headings.

Ian: the H3 is pretty big as
headings.

Shawn: we want to restyle that,
and change the spacing.

Ian: right it does look good. A
purest thing.

Shawn: I used to be a purest too,
and I went ahead and used as a definition list, or change to
headings and paragaphs and styled up. Headings would easier to
skim?

Ian: yes, you can navigate by
headings but not by definitions.

Shawn: other thoughts?
... we might write up some quick requirements of what we might
need. Then ask someone to be interested in finding out what
would be the best way to do that.

Ian: other resources for the W3C
site suggests lively results if that exists something that is
availabe for any part of the web site.

Shawn: the redesign for W3C
hasn't had a usability test but we can start with that. If we
find out if that is a good way to do it. If we find another way
that is good we can do that. I'm not sure when to get to that
but I'll let the group know. I plan to send an email out to EO
saying to take one more look before we publish the draft. Make
sure we are not leaving someone out or be interpreted in
negative way. go ahead and point people to this.
... any other comments or questions? Ok, the next item on the
agenda.

Topics: Disabilities and Barriers page of How
People with Disabilities Use the Web page (Overview)

Shawn: we have some specific
questions. First which types of disabilities or combine in.

Shadi: in particular, it's tough
to write these groups or categories of disabilities. On the one
side we don't want to make an exhaustive medical list. But we
want to list what make sure we are clear about like blindness
and low vision, but gets more difficult like mobility with
someone with unwanted movements, or someone who don't move the
arms at all. Where to draw the lines. Not always trivial. I'd
love some comments. Anything jumping out. Page
... relevent for the web.

Ian: I was going to ask about
dyslexia, why that group was put in the section.

shadi: if you go to that section
you see an initial section. Existing since 2000 we are
updating. Over the years was called dyslexia and over time fell
out.

Ian: in terminology these two
things affect is more about how you deal with in a web context.
Physical sense, or auditory? Not a visual or auditory problem
in that sense but a barrier to people. My concern how they fit
in a web sense, rather than a pure defintion of the
condition.

Shawn: I also had problems with
visual or auditory aspects. Something to look at
Shadi.

Shawn: I think the other one you
brought up under physical disabilities people will skim this
list, and maybe in greater details, because of that I lean to
have more broken out more or less. Mention physical
disabilities there is a big difference between tremors from
aging, and cerebral palsy from birth, to consider seperating
out some of them.

Ian: I would group them in how
people use the web. In the example of motor control, there
would be difference in how extreme it is but in the difficulty
in access or can't use at all. What I mean that is more
important than the medical condition, the affect is
important.

Shawn: this is an interesting
point. This is one point, currently there is an overview and
four pages that look similar but with a different spin. I
wonder what Ian is talking about is that similar to how you
have web browsing methods. Or rethink about web barriers
orgainized more on the barriers.

Ian: I like this list. Helps
people to understand of why this important. But what they think
about when they do this? The effects really, some good
examples, reads quite well as a paragrph on different reasons
for different disabilities followed by what actually affects
them using the web. The right balance talking about conditions
and the impact of conditions.

Shadi: talking in general?

Ian: in general. I think
following that sort of pattern, between common disabilites I'd
be quite happy.

Shadi: can we look at hearing
disabilities?
... the reason why I wanted people to look at. The difference
between hard of hearing and deafness is very subtle there. From
awareness raising there are people are deaf and people who are
hard of hearing. There is a slight different. In barriers they
overlap strongly. The use of sign language and for hard of
hearing volume control. For most disabilties there will be
significant overlaps, but slight differences. I am thinking of
two or three gro

Shawn: Consider a better way to
handle the overlap. Brainstorming. Maybe hearing disabilities
is H2, deafness is H2, then hard of hearing is H2, then
examinations of barriers is H2, and then further reading H2. In
the hearing disabilities level?

Shawn: limit the overlap. Kept
like this, deafness first then hard of hearing, then further
reading say very similar to above see under deafness.

<shawn> physical: 1. can use
pointing device some (eg tremour), 2. cannot use mouse, can use
keyboard (eg Glenda WH), 3. cannot use mouse or keyboard at all
(eg no arms)\

Shadi: I note, let's come back to
the question, more disabilities, a group of people who use a
pointing device, maybe not so precisely like a larger clicking
space, a mouse that corrects some kinds of movement. Then
people who can't use a keyboard or mouse at all. Another group
that cannot use the mouse and keyboard at all. Primarly who use
voice input or eye tracking quote sophisticated approaches
unquote, what do we call such groups?

Shawn: I think it good to
separate out three different groups.

<shawn> [shawn notes;
however, that some people w/o arms do use head stick etc and
can use keyboard...]

Shadi: what do people
think?
... some people who use a keyboard there is a continuity for
how well it can be used, I was thinking of three groups, those
who have limited use of inputs, and people who don't have
direct use at all. I was not sure what to call those two
groups. Not usual to have two groups, but usually not two
boxes.

Shawn: if from Ian's perpsective
it is different, between using a mouse at all or not is
different.

Ian: why do we need a name for
these groups, in the context of this document?

Shawn: if we break them out into
sections.

Ian: figure out if we want to
break out first, then worry about headings.

Shadi: suggestions?

Ian: I quite like the way it is
written out at the moment. The examples of barriers works quite
well.

Shawn: I would prefer them to be
broken out slightly. If it doesn't work out it is fine.

Ian: I'm not against breaking,
but a spectrum of categories. You might be arthritic, have a
limited control, and another day you would be completely unable
to use and that becomes two different groups. A big difference
between visual and auditory and memory deficits.

Shawn: under cognitive
disabilites there is some breaking out.

Ian: there is significant
overlap, but a little more separated in regard to most other
disabilties. One is limited or inaccurate control of input
device, and the other is inability to use an input device.

Shadi: the issue quickly leaves
the technical and goes into the sensitve area of labeling
people then in blindness and low vision, and in most
disabilites is not done. do we want to leave for now, something
border line in regard to not separating out. Do we want to
later on separate out and come up with a label.

Ian: I would worry about labels
or categories that don't broadly exist. To try to use this for
developers this document to try to instill a sense of empathy
with users. Try to create categories or assign labels is
something to avoid.

Shadi: to move on, I summarize
leave most disabilities as is now, but can come back to. Think
about how this is handled elsewhere but leave as is for
now.

Shawn: any other discussion on
the content list, other disabilties discussed or combined at
that level?

Shadi: related to that the
overall groupings or order of the categories. At the agenda
third question. The listing in the contents, we are using what
we used to use in WAI. We might take a slightly different
approach. We take that approach, we would then essentially we
would need to neurolgical and cognitive apart.

Shadi: any voices for against
separating cognitive and neurological or leave as one category
as they are now?

Shawn: I don't know if we have
broken out elsewhere, medically neurological can cause the
whole range of disabilities.

Sharron: this is really hard to
do, because these are really hard to categorize. They overlap
so much. Difficult to categorize by trying to separate the
criterion is very hard.

Shawn: say that at the very
beginning one or two sentences to help organize information but
don't make too much of that.

Sharron; recongize many of them overlap. A few
sentences would be good, then that makes the whole task easier.
Then it makes clearer how much they overlap. Tricky.

Shadi: there is quite a bit in
this document in the section in the multiple disabilities is
not coming through. let's assume the very clear warnings, don't
do what we are doing. Let's assume those warnings. Tell someone
who may never had an interaction with PWD. How they could make
their web sites. Their web software more usable for people of
different needs.

Shawn: I think neurological
should either be separated out, or not included, but not
included with cognitive. Maybe a note saying neurological can
impact functionally many of these situations. Or some version
of that.

Shadi: I'm surprised that no one
raised health issues. Chronic diseases sometimes do have
impact. I'm not sure if we need to discuss.

Ian: examples of that. Related to
aging to health issues, we are describing in different ways
what can cause people have difficulties using the web.

Doyle: I think of diabetes, due
to blindness, neurological, mobility.

Ian: I mean why someone would
have that rather than something specific. The reason why they
might have these issues rather than the disabilty.

<shawn> [another good example
of condition that causes "mulitple disabilities" is multiple
sclerosis]

Shadi: not tied to aging. Last
sections, 4 and 5. I think they are trying to do exactly that,
to be considerate of other requirements to combine these two
sections with other pointers with an example of diabetes that
have an impact. Maybe can't use the computer properly. A
consequence of positon. Impact on the use of the internet.
Aspects as well. Somebody after surgery. Multiple disabilities,
aging and other stuff. Unless people feel a specfic

Ian: I think from the multiple
section the first sentence (reads text) needs to be set off.
Not said n the same way. Example reader is told they can't use
the web site where the user has a speech disabilty as well
merely offereing an example is a good idea.

Doyle: merely an altrenative is a
barrier also. And offering an example is a good idea.
... merely offering an alternative is a barrier if that is a
barrier also. An example of that is a good idea.

<IanPouncey> Visually
impaired web user who is told to use the phone to contact a
company because a contact form is inaccessible. User may also
have a speech disability which prevents them from doing
this.

Shawn: Shadi your question on the
table. Objections to combining those sections. You are saying a
lot of that in the introduction already.

Shadi: that is what I wanted to
come back to . We need a lot of caution here. I am wondering if
people look at the intro and the universal design what
reactions there are there?

Shawn: others?

Shadi: Shawn I completely agree
what point to put in the introduction, and what points in other
sections, and what to drop entirely? Very first paragraph
introduces what is on this page, and how it relates to the rest
of the suite.

Shawn: is there something there I
can get by looking at the page. We have three methods for
looking at this page?

Shadi: last sentence of the whole
thing.

Shawn: the entire paragraph.

shadi: in the first paragraph to
move down?

Shawn: leave to editors
discretion.

Shadi: the second paragraph is
more interesting because of the labeling. No generally accepted
term. changes from country to country. Quite a bunch there.
Anything from this document other than doing some editorial
cleanup?

Shawn: what is important there to
get to say in the introduction?

Shadi: the importance to say is
the term disability is loosely defined is not a category. Is
not universally categorized and not group people in a
basket.

Doyle: fuzzy boundaries.

Liam: political terms to the
document?

Shadi: maybe not in terms but in
impact.
... Liam what are you trying to get at?

Liam: the requirement of the
document to hold the developers hand the requirement to change
the way we talk about disability. Brings us back to the new
disability pages on the W3C site.

Shawn: a good point. The idea to
talk about disability is when a persons abilities doesn't match
the environment, or even is that a disability. The idea of the
of barriers in the design causes disability.

Liam: do we want to include
that?

Ian: it doesn't needs a larger
section but mention that we are aware of but this document is
not about.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility:
"The Web is fundamentally designed to work for all people,
whatever their hardware, software, language, culture, location,
or physical or mental ability. When the Web meets this goal, it
is accessible to people with a diverse range of hearing,
movement, sight, and cognitive ability.

<shawn> Thus the impact of
disability is radically changed on the Web because the Web
removes barriers to communication and interaction that many
people face in the physical world. However, when websites, web
technologies, or web tools are badly designed, they can create
barriers that exclude people from using the Web."

Shadi: I'm going through the
exact same type of discussion in an interation a section on the
term of disability. I had in there and then it might apply to
the whole suite. We are making all sorts of simplications that
can be read differently some people

Liam: a philosophcal
syllabory.

Shadi: they are just samples in
some cases. I'm not sure how to handle.

Liam: becase this a suite of
documents, and area we are jujst getting into. When we use the
word disability doesn't need to be published, but as a
reference for this type of discussion. Do we subscribe to a
disability that is caused by environmental and that is a
difficult area barrier to talk about especially if you get into
cognitive. A good way to think about from a designers point of
view. A developer. We then use disability as a verb not as a
no

Shawn: one reaction we don't want
to get into that. And another if we want to this is the place
to do it.
... oh that is a big issue. I don't want to complicate and slow
down this document. My other reaction I'd love to and this
document is the best place to do it.

Liam: you don't have to do that
directly. Defining and using it from now on. People are
disabled by not disability causes.

Shawn: there have been some
difficulties in discussing that.

Shadi: I am wondering here, maybe
we don't need to get into here.

Doyle: I think a central question
of the times.

Ian: if we explain the simplest
possible way people are disabled by the environment and make
reference to use the word disability as purpose of
understanding.

Liam: require a gentle tone
change in the rest of document in the rest of the document?

Shawn: what is the retitlling
this week. Bad designs people? instead of how people use the
web?

Liam: how people use the
web.
... occasionally disabled by it.

Ian: I feel the introduction
needs to be more sensitve than the rest of the document. I'm
not saying the rest of the document should be insensitive, but
it is very important getting right is necessary.

Shawn: right.

Liam: understanding the diffrent
ways that people use the web.

<shawn> UNderstandiong the
Different Ways that People use thw Web

Liam: instead scenarios and
solutions, instead provide stories, solutions is about where
the problem lie. Making the design less bad.

Shawn: less disabling.

Liam: or accessible.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to
say not "universal design" here -- too loaded a term and to say
needs more tersification -- and for main points to jump out and
to say . still think need a

Shadi: slightly difficult reword.
All the rest of the resource we need to have a similar caution.
Some of that needs to be on the overview page.

Shawn: I still think we need some
sentence at the beginning of this page. The caution and gentle
stuff needs to be on the overview page and point to it. We
don't want to use the term "Universal Design".

Liam: allowed the last time.
Universal Design.

Shawn: the main points need to
jump out in the introduction.

Shadi: this section Universal
design is related to other, regardless describe somehow
differently doesn't belong here, goes in the solutions or
standards page. The approach is to remove barriers. Does any of
the Universal Design belong here in discussing different
disabilites and the barriers.

Liam: off topic.

Ian: I don't think is absolutely
necessary that can't be somewhere else.

Shadi: that first sentence might
be nice. Point back to overview page.

Ian: that paragrpha is colored by
the introduction?

Shadi: yes. There is a caution
that also applies. Back in the overview page and give different
spins. Let me recap. First we try to remove as much as possible
especially the more general and put into overview page. Tersify
the introduction. Re-organize the categores as we have on the
disability page. Neurological needs to be broken. And other
disbilities fits...

Shawn: fits at the end, or at the
beginning?

Shadi: an eye operner. Move the
Universal Design to accessibility standards and discuss that.
Any other quick comments.

Shawn: consider a cautionary
comment and the very beginning before the page content.

Shadi: before the content.

Shawn: and change the title. Yes
before talking about categorize say don't categorize.

Shawn: the last thing reminding
the training resource suite is ready for your detailed
comments. Put in them in the survey you can also send the
editors list. If you need more time we need to know that. We
are not having a face to face meeting in Vienna after all. We
are having one in November in France. Please update you
availabilty.
... I have a bunch of dates to that. You can change anytime.
Any other reminders or questions or comments? I will send an
email about the accessble presentations. It is nice if you say
go for it. Explicit approval is what we need for that. Minutes
clean up.